Letters to the Editor - Feb. 2, 2013

Saturday

Feb 2, 2013 at 3:15 AM

To the editor: An open letter to Senators Kelly Ayotte, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Representative Carol Shea-Porter and Representative Anne Kuster,

The Exeter Area General Federation of Women’s Clubs was disappointed the 112th Congress chose not to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). We are encouraged by the reintroduction of VAWA by Sens. Leahy (D)& Crapo (R). We implore our NH delegation to work diligently to see that the VAWA is passed immediately.

If you don’t, ALL victims of violence will lose critical protections, including:

— Protections for victims of dating and sexual violence at colleges and universities, who often lack access to the justice system simply because these crimes occur on campus.

— Crucial new protections for victims of sexual violence, and major new provisions to improve the criminal justice response to sexual assault.

— Valuable new prevention programs that can reduce the likelihood of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking from occurring in the future.

— Programs protecting immigrant victims and communities of color.

We join with the other 100,000 GFWC members across this nation to support passage of The VAWA. GFWC continues its tradition of addressing social issues affecting women and families through programs that combat violence and promote human rights. We expect action from you, pass this bill now.

Thank you for your service.

Debra Altschiller

Exeter Area General Federation of Women’s Clubs

To the editor: Ref: In response to the recent editorial about wind power (and “needed” nuclear power.)

I guess you haven’t been reading the same information about wind power that I have. Look up “Wind power in NH” on the Internet. The article points out that NH is a producer of power generated by wind. In other words, more is being generated than is being consumed locally. Wind power is an encouraging success story in New Hampshire.

The photos of the Lempster Project, I felt, were very impressive. They struck me as a very intelligent way to make our electrical power. Simply, big fan turning a turbine generator. Nothing harmful going in the atmosphere. No lethal waste product to contend with forever.

In regard to needing Seabrook for power, have you wondered how we have our electricity when Seabrook is shut down for repairs or refueling? I checked into it and found that our grid still easily maintains the required 125% without Seabrook. I, therefore, believe we can do without it.

If you haven’t taken the tour of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant, I urge you to do so. It is extremely complex compared to propellers or water directly turning a generator. “Simplicity is the essence of design” doesn’t fit nuclear.

Fukushima was the latest “wake-up” event. Because of the multiple serious problems NextEra is experiencing at their Seabrook Plant presently, they should eliminate any threat of nuclear disaster here by shutting down now and proceed with the decommissioning process. Because NextEra is a leader in both Solar and Wind Power, they might want to present a proposal for alternate power generation before competition gets in here.

With Seabrook gone, I believe many people will want to move to the seacoast area eliminating a worry some have about area “survival.”

Don Tilbury

Hampton

To the editor: My name is Cynthia Wyatt and I have served on Milton’s Conservation Commission for the last 15 years. Milton’s Select Board has submitted a warrant article to discontinue funding Milton’s Conservation Fund with 50% of revenues collected from land use change tax penalties (LUCT). Milton approved this funding by town vote in 2002 pursuant to RSA 79-A. LUCT is the only source of funding for Milton’s Conservation Fund. LUCT is a penalty (10% of fair market value) paid to the town by landowners who choose to take their property out of current use for development. LUCT money from development is funneled back into future conservation projects. LUCT is not Milton taxpayers’ money. Most of Milton’s neighboring towns contribute all or part of LUCT to their Conservation Funds.

Over the years, New Hampshire’s Legislature has enacted important legislation such as RSA 79-A to support local conservation efforts because it is in the public interest to do so. The preservation of important natural resource areas is not only vital for the protection of our air, water, scenic and recreational areas, but also for our local economy. Conservation lands impose few if any costs on local government. Additionally, conservation lands support and promote the Tourism and Forest Products Industries in NH, which are significant income and job producers to Milton and all NH communities.

Milton’s visual, economic, and recreational centerpieces are the Milton Three Ponds. The Milton Conservation Commission has worked hard over the years to develop policies and practices in the Natural Resources chapter of Milton’s Master Plan to ensure Milton’s water quality for the health and welfare of its citizens as well as the economic health of its communities. One of the most effective ways to do so is by providing funding for voluntary conservation easement projects that permanently conserve private forest lands. Forest lands provide critical filtering buffers for Milton’s ground and surface waters.

Funding for conservation easements and their associated high costs typically require quick action due to purchase and sales deadlines. In order to assist and expedite important conservation projects, the State passed enabling legislation to allow towns to establish conservation funds and to transfer LUCT to those funds.

In Milton, many conservation easements on private lands such as the 370 acre Salmon Falls Headwater lands in Milton Mills have been facilitated with help from Milton’s Conservation Fund. These conservation projects fulfill the conservation objectives of Milton’s Master plan by protecting Milton’s water resources, forestlands, wildlife habitat, farmland, and recreational areas. The preservation of Milton’s scenic beauty and rural character and the protection of the Salmon Falls Watershed and Milton’s public drinking supply also provide profound, long lasting benefits for Milton’s economy. In every aspect, the preservation of Milton’s important natural resources is in the public interest of Milton’s communities.

Cynthia Wyatt

Milton

To the editor: The other day I read a pro-gun letter ending: “Protect our constitutional rights, stand up to creeping Liberalism and support true Americans.” Guess that makes me an untrue creeping liberal from a foreign land. Perhaps this sort of nonsense explains why pundits are beginning to tag the radical right as the “party of stupid”.

Let’s face it, something has got to change — and change it will. The problem is, the NRA’s pugnacious stance only increases the odds of federal intervention and restriction. To control the destiny of gun ownership, Americans need to get out in front of the issue and focus on our responsibilities as gun owners. Spieling platitudes about “rights” or debating trivia like the number of rounds it takes to fill a magazine simply avoids the real issue. The real issue is that loaded guns in the hands of incompetent gun owners make (good) people nervous — as it should!

Personally, I support uniform training and licensure. Statistics aside, the simple act of being personally willing to demonstrate the knowledge, skill, and mental competence to handle a firearm safely sends a far more reassuring message to the community than NRA-inspired ranting. So, lets acknowledge the competency issue, stop carping about what we won’t do, and grant our fellow citizens the simple courtesy of taking positive steps to improve their safety. It’s the responsible thing to do!

Rick Littlefield

Barrington

To the editor; I received a call today from a friend from Franklin who started telling me about HB 135 and how the Democrats want to repeal the Stand Your Ground law.

When I first moved here I read a newspaper story about a policeman who was shot by a high school rival he had stopped for a traffic violation who was shot himself by a passerby that picked up the policeman’s gun. Stand your ground protects everyone.

I asked my friend what this has to do with the Newtown shooting? He said nothing the Attorney General and the State Police want it because of the Travon Martin shooting in Florida.

Really? The Democrats want to change the law that protects everyone from violent crime by taking away the ability to use deadly force when no other course of action is available in situations passersby may come upon, because of an incident in a state 1,400 miles from here that has no witnesses and the person charged in the case hasn’t even gone to trial.

So much for innocent until proven guilty. They should name the legislation the Forrest Gump Act. If you see someone getting car jacked, raped or robbed at gunpoint all you will be able to do is yell “Run Forrest Run”.

James Edgar

Meredith

To the editor: This year New Hampshire became the first state in the country to propose a bill known as an “ag-gag” bill, called HB 110. On the surface, this bill appears as though it is intended to protect farm animals, but it will actually do the opposite if it is passed. Small, family farms in New Hampshire have shown concern over this bill, believing that they should support it, when in actuality it would make their operations more of a hassle to run. These ag-gag bills are not intended to affect small farms, but rather the large, industrial-sized farms of the Midwest where animal cruelty runs rampant, which is why these bills are not common in the Northeast.

In recent years, whistle-blowing employees and undercover investigators have repeatedly exposed animal abuse, unsafe working conditions, and environmental problems on industrial farms. The agriculture industry’s response to these exposÚs has not been to prevent the abuses, but rather to try to prevent the American people from finding out about the abuses in the first place so agribusinesses don’t lose revenue. The industry has introduced ag-gag bills in numerous states aimed at making whistle-blowing on farms essentially impossible. American consumers have a right to know when animal cruelty is exposed on farms, and this bill would thwart efforts to build strong, winnable cases to protect farm animals through undercover operations!

Please contact your local representative and urge him or her to oppose House Bill 110, let’s make the case for animals!

Heather Harrison

Keene

To the editor: Since President Obama took office in 2009, Republican politicians have opposed his economic policies. Their charge? His policies don’t provide the certainty that businesses need to invest and grow.

So you would think that Republicans in Congress would promote such certainty. Sadly, they have done the exact opposite.

For example, in the summer of 2011 they threatened to force the country to default on its debt unless President Obama and Congressional Democrats agreed to deep spending cuts. Egged on by their Tea Party wing, they were ready to cause a global economic catastrophe — which would happen if a default occurred — to get their way. A last-minute deal narrowly averted default but the country’s credit rating took a hit when the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s lowered the government bond rating for the first time ever. This episode actually resulted in additional national debt, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Just recently Congressional Republicans threatened to shut down the Federal government in late March when current funding authority runs out. They did the same thing in April 2011 when they almost shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood.

GOP brinksmanship is irresponsible and reckless, creating the uncertainty that they claim to oppose. Voters should remember this whenever they hear a Republican politician say businesses need certainty.

Larry Drake

Portsmouth

To the editor: On what would have been Granny D’s 103rd birthday, more than eighty people gathered in Keene at the college’s Redfern Center for the Arts to celebrate and remember our Laconia-born activist-heroine who walked across the country for campaign finance reform in her 89th and 90th years. Our hosts, P.A.C.E. and C.O.D., both supported by Granny D, arranged that we’d see and hear Barbara Bates-Smith, an award-winning off-Broadway and touring actor, play the role of Granny D — reading and reciting from memory parts of the accounts in You’re Never Too Old to Raise a Little Hell, as well as in the new My American Century. When Ms. Bates-Smith stood before us and became Granny D reacting to the Citizens United case and spoke Granny D’s words about that, said at her 100th birthday in Gov. Lynch’s reception room, I newly caught sight of Granny D’s sparkling determination. The accompanying music by Jeff Sebens added to the treat.

Granny D told us what we must do. It cannot stand, that corporations are people. I know that Public Citizen has taken initial steps to achieve a Constitutional amendment about that. Public Citizen, here I come. Time to work with you on this.

This inspirational afternoon ended with Granny D’s band Tattoo leading us in song and playing us out of the theater and away to the room with grand chocolate birthday cake and video of Granny D at work, speaking and walking and smiling. May Granny D’s spirit enter all who are ready to work for our democracy. Look at the website for Coalition for Open Democracy.

Lynn Rudmin Chong

Sanbornton

To the editor: Maybe you’ve heard the slogan, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” That credo reflects an opinion, supported by some but definitely not all gun owners in New Hampshire, that our communities would be safer if every private household owned a firearm for self-defense. I’m sure that gun manufacturers love this idea, but as a mother and grandmother I’m not sure it’s the best way to keep our children and families safe.

I’m especially troubled by the certainty that we can always know the “bad guys” from the “good guys.” When the media reports on the catastrophic toll of gun violence in America, coverage tends to focus on mass-murdering “bad guys” like the suicidal gunmen at Columbine High School and Adam Lanza, who shot and killed seven adults and 20 first-graders in Newtown, CT.

The typical victims of gun violence against children in the U.S. may have more in common with Sarah and Philip Gehring, age 14 and 11, who in 2003 were shot and killed by their father after watching the July 4 fireworks in Concord, NH. And the typical “bad guy” in such tragic murders may have more in common with Manuel Gehring — an unemployed accountant who was upset with his child custody arrangement. In a recent New York Times article, forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Stone remarked that out of the 200 mass murders he’s studied, the “bad guy” was 4 times more likely to be a “good guy” who was having a bad day, or a bad week, or a bad year, than a deranged lunatic on a random rampage.

While it’s impossible to protect our children from every random act of deadly violence — at least, not if we want them to lead normal, healthy lives — I believe there is much more we can do to make our communities safer and prevent highly lethal firearms from getting into the hands of people who may use them to kill. A first step is to pass laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales. A ban on sales of military-style weapons specifically designed for rapid, high-volume killing is another responsible approach. We can and must improve access to mental health care and treatment for depression that can turn into deadly rage. But above all, we need to make a commitment to becoming a society where it is unthinkable to imagine solving the problem of gun violence with more guns.

Lenore Patton

Hampton

To the editor: After the tragedy in Newtown, it has become very clear to me that we need to do more to protect our children and families from the catastrophic effects of gun violence.

Recently, I was surprised to learn that any New Hampshire resident can legally purchase a handgun without undergoing a criminal and mental health background check, so long as the transaction is made through a private sale (the so-called “gun show loophole”). I was even more disturbed to find out that, as long as a firearm is purchased legally, the owner has a right to carry that weapon, loaded and unconcealed, on any street, in any neighborhood, in every community in New Hampshire. Is that really the culture we want our children and grandchildren growing up in?

In New Hampshire, it’s perfectly legal for someone who would fail a routine background check by a licensed firearms dealer to buy a gun, load it up with bullets, and carry it around where you and your loved ones live, work, shop, and play. While guns are banned in some public buildings, I also learned that New Hampshire law prohibits cities and towns from passing stronger ordinances to limit public areas where “open carry” of firearms is allowed.

As responsible citizens, we must find a way to balance respect for 2nd Amendment rights with the right of all Granite Staters — gun-owners and non-gun owners alike — to feel reasonably safe from lethal violence in our own communities. Wouldn’t passing laws requiring criminal and mental health background checks for all firearm sales be a good place to start?

Beth Olshansky

Durham

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.